United States v. Jose Ortiz

MEMORANDUM

Jose Rafael Ortiz appeals both his conviction and sentence for attempted reentry after deportation. 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . Ortiz contends that the evidence used to convict him was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and therefore should have been suppressed. Ortiz also claims that he was improperly denied a downward sentencing adjustment and that the district court’s chosen sentence was substantively unreasonable. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this ease, we repeat only those facts necessary to resolve the issues raised on appeal. We affirm.

Ortiz claims he was stopped and questioned by a Border Patrol agent without reasonable suspicion. The Supreme Court has articulated a number of factors that may be considered when deciding whether there is reasonable suspicion to stop an individual near the border. United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 884-85 , 95 S.Ct. 2574 , 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975). For instance, officers may consider “the characteristics of the area,” including: (1) “[i]ts proximity to the border”; (2) the “previous experience with alien traffic” in the area; and (3) “information about recent illegal…